HotHardware - If You Resell Your Used Games, The Terrorists Win. Thanks Ant via Slashdot.Both Browne and Braben conflate hating GameStop (a thoroughly reasonable life choice) with the supposed evils of the used games market. Braben goes so far as to claim that used games are actually responsible for high game prices and that "prices would have come down long ago if the industry was getting a share of the resells." Amazingly, no game publishers have stepped forward to publicly pledge themselves to lower game prices in exchange for a cut of used game sales.

And that's relevant how, exactly? I don't seem to remember claiming used sales were in the Constitution.

You claimed that legality was the reality of the situation. Except it isn't because legality and reality have no correlation. Laws are a societal construct that holds no natural meaning. That's why arguing that people have the legal right to sell used games doesn't add anything to this debate. Nobody is disputing the legality of used sales. What we're disputing is the impact it has on publishers and developers.

Ok, right, publishers accept that stores sell the "used" copy that the publisher sells them, but dislikes it when they sell the "used" copy that someone else sells them. Why is that anyone other than the publisher's problem?

You honestly don't see the distinction between a store and a person? Stores sell new copies of games. These copies have never been opened or played and were obtained directly from the publisher at lower prices with the agreement that the product would be sold under these conditions. Stores act as a means for publishers to get their product to customers.

This is not at all the same thing as someone buying a used game, playing it, selling it back to GameStop, who then sells it to someone else, rinse and repeat.

Now, I do agree that publishers should actually do something if they want to stop used sales. They don't have the balls to cut off stores like GameStop entirely, so they're instead resorting to things like online passes. However, none of this changes the fact that if you buy a used game, you are not compensating the publisher or developer for their product. Somebody else may have at some point in time, but you did not, nor did anyone else who bought that used copy before you. You obviously don't care about this fact, as you believe your legal rights provide the only justification you need.

Legality and reality couldn't be more opposite. Reality doesn't respect your rights. Reality doesn't care about what you're entitled to. Lock yourself in a cage with an angry bear and see how much he cares about the Constitution

And that's relevant how, exactly? I don't seem to remember claiming used sales were in the Constitution.

You're neglecting the fact that stores are supposed to distribute products, not use them. That's why stores exist. That's why publishers sell them product in bulk at low prices. Stores are not supposed to use products and then resell them. Well, I think GameStop actually does that with the used games they stock but they aren't supposed to do it with new ones. When a publisher sells a batch of games to a store, they do it with the understanding that those copies will then be sold, unopened, directly to customers. Once all those copies have been sold, retailers are supposed to order more copies from the publisher. If retailers keep reselling the same copies over and over, this doesn't happen.

What does "supposed to" have to do with anything? You haven't disproven my original assertion, you've just argued that it's acceptable. Ok, right, publishers accept that stores sell the "used" copy that the publisher sells them, but dislikes it when they sell the "used" copy that someone else sells them. Why is that anyone other than the publisher's problem?

When you trade a game in at GameStop people pretty much always take store credit for it because of the reduced cash value for trade ins, and proably more importantly, because promos only apply to trade ins for credit. That's why I talk about the money remaining in circulation within the industry, because it has to go towards additional game purchases.

It would be more accurate to say that money remains in circulation at GameStop, since used sales are 100% profit for them and reduces the amount of new copies they need to order from publishers.

Saying that used games are only $5-10 less than new really isn't true. Most used games are sold pretty aggressively, GameStop is consistsnly offering promos on used games, as do most used game dealers. I bought my sisters family an Xbox 360 for Christmas and found most older titles to be anywhere from 50% to 75% off used vs new. I ended up being able to start them off with a much larger library of games by choosing to buy some titles used.

It's true that used copies of older games tend to have greater discounts, but the same applies to new copies as well. Newer and more popular games typically have a $5-10 discount.

You should really drop this line of argument. The copy you post on the Internet is not the copy they received compensation for, it is a duplicate, as is every other copy downloaded. Your argument only makes sense If GameStop was manufacturing additional copies of the used games they sell.

For all intents and purposes, that's exactly what GameStop is doing. If GameStop just keeps reselling used games, they don't need to order as many new copies from publishers. Piracy has the same effect. If you buy a game and then copy it 1000 times, that's 1000 less new copies that will need to be replenished. The difference is that piracy requires no investment, so a pirated copy does not necessarily equate to a lost sale. Conversely, used sales prove that people were willing to actually pay for the game and that they just wanted to save a little money.

It doesn't revolve around them, it uses them to demonstrate the reality of the situation.

Legality and reality couldn't be more opposite. Reality doesn't respect your rights. Reality doesn't care about what you're entitled to. Lock yourself in a cage with an angry bear and see how much he cares about the Constitution.

Fine, if you want to think of it from that perspective, every single sale of a game from a store is a used sale, so the publishers and developers should get paid more. When a store buys a game from a publisher, that's the sale. The store owns the copy. They then turn around and sell the game to other people, a clear case of a used sale! Sure, the store paid the publisher for the copy when they bought it, but now they are reselling the game, and the publisher isn't getting a cut of it!

You're neglecting the fact that stores are supposed to distribute products, not use them. That's why stores exist. That's why publishers sell them product in bulk at low prices. Stores are not supposed to use products and then resell them. Well, I think GameStop actually does that with the used games they stock but they aren't supposed to do it with new ones. When a publisher sells a batch of games to a store, they do it with the understanding that those copies will then be sold, unopened, directly to customers. Once all those copies have been sold, retailers are supposed to order more copies from the publisher. If retailers keep reselling the same copies over and over, this doesn't happen.

Hell, if publishers had any brains at all, they'd get into the used sale business. If they re-bought their own games at the prices Gamestop is charging (well, a little higher to beat out Gamestop), they'd be able to make the profits that Gamestop is making. But they've got the same blinders on that you have, and are more concerned with trying to combat a problem that only exists because they've ignored it.

You actually have a good point there. Well, almost. A big reason why GameStop is so popular is because it's so convenient. There's a GameStop store in practically every mall and shopping center. Publishers could buy and sell used games online, but that wouldn't be nearly as convenient to impatient and/or lazy customers. Setting up brick & mortar stores to handle used sales would be cost-prohibitive. If it was really that easy to cut out the middle-man, publishers would have done it already.

Not true, and you know it. The majority of pirated games come from someone involved in the distribution process, which is why they often beat the street date. No one is buying the game to release it online.

As Dev mentioned, that's not really true of PC games. It may have been true 10 years ago but since online activations started becoming standard, it's not true anymore. Even if you managed to obtain a copy of the game illegally, you'd still need to download the files needed to complete activation and those are difficult to get without buying a legal copy. As for console games, it's true that they typically get pirated before the U.S. release dates. However, that's because stores in other countries often break the street dates and start selling them prematurely. That's why the first pirated copies are almost always from the European SKU. Or store employees sneak out a copy after the shipments first arrive. According to your logic, those copies were already paid for so it's okay, right?

Not true, and you know it. The majority of pirated games come from someone involved in the distribution process, which is why they often beat the street date. No one is buying the game to release it online.

That may be true for console games. With PC games, it seems to be increasingly rare to beat street date (because thats one form of DRM that seems to work pretty effectively, if you leave out a couple important files and make them downloaded after the date, such as a steam pre-load).

As for piracy not creating revenue, again, you're contradicting yourself. You can't claim that saving money on a used copy will inevitably lead to sales of new copies, then turn around and say that saving money on a pirated copy won't

.

A few quick points, as I think this debate is losing steam. When you trade a game in at GameStop people pretty much always take store credit for it because of the reduced cash value for trade ins, and proably more importantly, because promos only apply to trade ins for credit. That's why I talk about the money remaining in circulation within the industry, because it has to go towards additional game purchases.

And if used sales disappeared, do you think these people would stop buying games entirely? Or would they just buy fewer games? Keep in mind that used sales are non-existent sales for publishers and developers since no compensation is given to them. So basically, these people would still be buying the same amount of new games as before. That said, GameStop typically sells used games for only $5-10 less than new ones, so I'm guessing that most customers would accept the slight price increase and end up buying more new copies than they would have otherwise.

Consumers only have so much disposable income, what would happen without the abillity to buy and sell used games is anyones guess. My guess is that so called must have AAA titles would see increased sales while more fringe titles would see decreases due to more dollars being spent on the must have AAA games.

Saying that used games are only $5-10 less than new really isn't true. Most used games are sold pretty aggressively, GameStop is consistsnly offering promos on used games, as do most used game dealers. I bought my sisters family an Xbox 360 for Christmas and found most older titles to be anywhere from 50% to 75% off used vs new. I ended up being able to start them off with a much larger library of games by choosing to buy some titles used.

So if I buy a game, then upload a copy onto the net, that means that neither the publisher nor developer ever received compensation? Most pirated games originate from a legally-obtained copy. While each used copy was initially a new copy, that only applied to the first transaction (just like with many pirated copies). All the used sales? No compensation whatsoever (just like with pirated copies).

You should really drop this line of argument. The copy you post on the Internet is not the copy they received compensation for, it is a duplicate, as is every other copy downloaded. Your argument only makes sense If GameStop was manufacturing additional copies of the used games they sell.

Not true, and you know it. The majority of pirated games come from someone involved in the distribution process, which is why they often beat the street date. No one is buying the game to release it online.

If your argument revolves around rights and entitlements, then yes, it's about legality and not practical results

It doesn't revolve around them, it uses them to demonstrate the reality of the situation.

Without used sales, stores would only be able to sell new copies. Once they run out of new copies, they'd have to order more from the publisher. Used copies help retailers avoid buying more copies from publishers, thus denying them compensation that they would have earned had used copies not been available.

See, this is where the blinders come in. To you, any sale should have the publishers being "compensated". Conveniently, of course, overlooking the example of the block of cheese I used to point out how idiotic that viewpoint is.

Fine, if you want to think of it from that perspective, every single sale of a game from a store is a used sale, so the publishers and developers should get paid more. When a store buys a game from a publisher, that's the sale. The store owns the copy. They then turn around and sell the game to other people, a clear case of a used sale! Sure, the store paid the publisher for the copy when they bought it, but now they are reselling the game, and the publisher isn't getting a cut of it!

Again, a completely ludicrous position, but it's the logical progression of the argument you are making.

Why do you think GameStop loves used sales so much? It's pure profit for them.

Of course it is. That's because they've managed to effectively corner the market. The profit doesn't come from not compensating the publishers, the profit comes from ripping off consumers. When Gamestop can buy a used copy of a game from a customer at a much lower price than the publisher is charging, who do you expect them to buy from? Consumers are stupid to sell their games for so little when Gamestop resells them for so much. And other stores/companies are stupid for letting this happen without trying to get in on the action.

Hell, if publishers had any brains at all, they'd get into the used sale business. If they re-bought their own games at the prices Gamestop is charging (well, a little higher to beat out Gamestop), they'd be able to make the profits that Gamestop is making. But they've got the same blinders on that you have, and are more concerned with trying to combat a problem that only exists because they've ignored it.

No I'm not, that's just all you are seeing because you've got blinders on.

If your argument revolves around rights and entitlements, then yes, it's about legality and not practical results.

They've already got their compensation. That's all they get. The publisher makes a bunch of copies of the game, and ships them to stores, which pay the publisher for them. That's the compensation they get for them. What happens to them after the fact is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant at all. Without used sales, stores would only be able to sell new copies. Once they run out of new copies, they'd have to order more from the publisher. Used copies help retailers avoid buying more copies from publishers, thus denying them compensation that they would have earned had used copies not been available. Why do you think GameStop loves used sales so much? It's pure profit for them. And before you say "Oh, well, those wouldn't have been new sales anyway," keep in mind that GameStop typically sells used games for only $5-10 less then new ones. I'm pretty sure most people would be willing to spend that much more to buy new copies if used ones weren't available.

Again, you're are focusing on a single transaction. In a future transaction someone may end up trading in CoD2012 and purchasing a new copy of double fine adventure when it is released. Things balance out, the money stays in circulation within the industry. Piracy simply creates a new copy that otherwise wouldn't exist, no value is added, no revenue will be derived past, present or future.

It doesn't "balance out." People are more likely to buy new copies of games that have a lot of hype and marketing. Conversely, they are more likely to buy used copies of games that don't have these things. If you buy a used copy of a relatively obscure game so that you can afford a new copy of the latest big-budget, mainstream game, the likelihood of you repeating that practice is far higher than the likelihood of you suddenly switching it around. And please stop talking about the industry like it's some sort of wonderful commune. It's not. Giving your money to one publisher or developer only helps that publisher or developer. None of that money makes its way to anyone else. This is why developers get shut down and why publishers go bankrupt. When you buy a used game, your money doesn't even go to any publisher or developer. It goes directly to GameStop, Best Buy, Amazon, GameFly, Goozex, etc.

As for piracy not creating revenue, again, you're contradicting yourself. You can't claim that saving money on a used copy will inevitably lead to sales of new copies, then turn around and say that saving money on a pirated copy won't. You save more money by pirating something than you do by buying a used copy. More money saved = more money available to spend = greater likelihood of money being spent to buy a new copy of any given game. If you're going to claim that a person who buys a used game will always buy a new game to balance it out, I can just as easily claim that a person who pirates a game will then use the money saved to buy a new one. It goes both ways.

We are specifically talking about the subset of buyers who choose to resell their games, which considering the amount of business GameStop does, is quite significant.Those buyers absolutely factor in the ability to resell into their purchasing decisions.

And if used sales disappeared, do you think these people would stop buying games entirely? Or would they just buy fewer games? Keep in mind that used sales are non-existent sales for publishers and developers since no compensation is given to them. So basically, these people would still be buying the same amount of new games as before. That said, GameStop typically sells used games for only $5-10 less than new ones, so I'm guessing that most customers would accept the slight price increase and end up buying more new copies than they would have otherwise.

The one Incontrovertible fact still remains that every copy of a game in circulation new or used has provided its publisher/developer compensation. Whereas no compensation has been received past, present or future for a pirated copy.

So if I buy a game, then upload a copy onto the net, that means that neither the publisher nor developer ever received compensation? Most pirated games originate from a legally-obtained copy. While each used copy was initially a new copy, that only applied to the first transaction (just like with many pirated copies). All the used sales? No compensation whatsoever (just like with pirated copies).

No I'm not, that's just all you are seeing because you've got blinders on.

However, when used games are bought and sold, neither the developer or publisher sees compensation.

They've already got their compensation. That's all they get. The publisher makes a bunch of copies of the game, and ships them to stores, which pay the publisher for them. That's the compensation they get for them. What happens to them after the fact is irrelevant.

Let's put it differently, and see if this clears it up. When a store buys the game from the publisher, the store could, if it wanted to, turn around and hand all those games out for free. The store would lose money, certainly, but the option is there for it. Now, if the store did that, could it turn around to the publisher and demand money from them because they gave away the games? Of course not - the publisher isn't part of the equation at that point. The same is true with used sales. The publisher got paid for the copy of the game. If someone wants to sell their game, trade it for a block of cheese, or flush it down the toilet, that's irrelevant.

Saying "the publisher doesn't see compensation" when someone buys/sells a used game is just as silly as saying that the publisher didn't get a slice of the cheese when someone traded their game for the block of cheese. And it's even sillier to suggest that trading a game for a block of cheese is just like piracy. And yet you're trying to do it anyway.

So you're saying that people wouldn't buy new games if there was no ability to resell them? The tremendous growth of digital distribution says otherwise. The notion that the industry would collapse were it not for used sales is fairly absurd. If used sales were abolished, life would go on as usual. There was a time when you could buy used PC games. Did PC gaming die when CD-keys and activations effectively killed the used PC game market? Nope. Do you really think that the console market would fare any differently? People can complain about consumer rights and entitlements all they want but at the end of the day, they'll still buy the games they want to play.

Talk about a straw man.... We are specifically talking about the subset of buyers who choose to resell their games, which considering the amount of business GameStop does, is quite significant.Those buyers absolutely factor in the ability to resell into their purchasing decisions.

I don't remember making any argument regarding the collapse of the industry. Personally, I think consoles could transition to an all digital market place if they learn from the pc side and copy the steam model of aggressive pricing. Unfortunately though, I bet they will simply try to use their closed marketplaces to price gouge consumers by offering less value for the same dollar amount. To be fair though, I was pessimistic about steam as well, and I have to admit that turned out great for consumers.

I already covered this one. Publishers and developers don't exist as one single conglomerate with shared profits. Buying a used copy of Psychonauts so you can afford to buy a new copy of CoD2012 does not help Double-Fine. It helps Activision and Infinity Ward/Treyarch. Different developers, different publishers. Even if you bought two games from the same developer and publisher, the used sale would negate the new one (provided the games had the same value at the same of purchase).

Again, you're are focusing on a single transaction. In a future transaction someone may end up trading in CoD2012 and purchasing a new copy of double fine adventure when it is released. Things balance out, the money stays in circulation within the industry. Piracy simply creates a new copy that otherwise wouldn't exist, no value is added, no revenue will be derived past, present or future.

This ability exists with new copies of games as well. However, when someone buys a new copy and DLC, the publisher/developer sees revenue from both the sale of the game AND the sale of the DLC

I thought we were discussing the difference between used games and piracy, the fact that you can buy dlc with a new game is irrelevent.

Ironically, many of your arguments can be applied to piracy as well. If you pirate a copy of Psychonauts, you'll save even more money which makes it even easier to buy a new copy of CoD2012. If you pirate a game and enjoy it, but can't get access to the DLC, you might be compelled to buy the full game. I know that having Steam automatically download patches and DLC is a lot more convenient than having to hunt down cracked patches and DLC. And if you're really concerned about saving money, piracy offers a means to try games that you'd otherwise never buy or at most wait until they hit the bargain bin (at which point neither the publisher nor developer sees negligible revenue). Who knows, if a pirate really likes a game, he might just buy it

See, it's very easy to make a broad argument full of convenient assumptions. Unfortunately, those assumptions can't really be supported by enough facts to provide the foundation of a strong argument. You need to focus in things that can be supported by facts. Like the fact that publishers and developers see no revenue from used or pirated games

I've presented numerous facts, that I doubt any fair minded person would dispute. The one Incontrovertible fact still remains that every copy of a game in circulation new or used has provided its publisher/developer compensation. Whereas no compensation has been received past, present or future for a pirated copy.

You want to ignore that the original "new" buyer almost certainly factored in their ability to resell the game at a later time before making their purchase.

So you're saying that people wouldn't buy new games if there was no ability to resell them? The tremendous growth of digital distribution says otherwise. The notion that the industry would collapse were it not for used sales is fairly absurd. If used sales were abolished, life would go on as usual. There was a time when you could buy used PC games. Did PC gaming die when CD-keys and activations effectively killed the used PC game market? Nope. Do you really think that the console market would fare any differently? People can complain about consumer rights and entitlements all they want but at the end of the day, they'll still buy the games they want to play.

You want to pretend that the money received by selling their game will not recirculate into the game industry and will only be used on preowned games.

I already covered this one. Publishers and developers don't exist as one single conglomerate with shared profits. Buying a used copy of Psychonauts so you can afford to buy a new copy of CoD2012 does not help Double-Fine. It helps Activision and Infinity Ward/Treyarch. Different developers, different publishers. Even if you bought two games from the same developer and publisher, the used sale would negate the new one (provided the games had the same value at the same of purchase).

You want to ignore that each and every time a used copy of a game is sold it gives publishers the ability to up sell a new customer on high margin DLC.

This ability exists with new copies of games as well. However, when someone buys a new copy and DLC, the publisher/developer sees revenue from both the sale of the game AND the sale of the DLC.

Ironically, many of your arguments can be applied to piracy as well. If you pirate a copy of Psychonauts, you'll save even more money which makes it even easier to buy a new copy of CoD2012. If you pirate a game and enjoy it, but can't get access to the DLC, you might be compelled to buy the full game. I know that having Steam automatically download patches and DLC is a lot more convenient than having to hunt down cracked patches and DLC. And if you're really concerned about saving money, piracy offers a means to try games that you'd otherwise never buy or at most wait until they hit the bargain bin (at which point neither the publisher nor developer sees negligible revenue). Who knows, if a pirate really likes a game, he might just buy it.

See, it's very easy to make a broad argument full of convenient assumptions. Unfortunately, those assumptions can't really be supported by enough facts to provide the foundation of a strong argument. You need to focus in things that can be supported by facts. Like the fact that publishers and developers see no revenue from used or pirated games.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 23, 2012, 12:30:You're still arguing legality and not practical results. Once again, nobody is disputing that people are allowed to buy and sell used games. However, when used games are bought and sold, neither the developer or publisher sees compensation. Whether or not they deserve to see compensation is another matter entirely, but the fact remains that they don't see any. Same thing applies to piracy.

I see the problem here. You want to argue the single used game transaction and ignore the larger picture. You want to ignore that the original "new" buyer almost certainly factored in their ability to resell the game at a later time before making their purchase. You want to pretend that the money received by selling their game will not recirculate into the game industry and will only be used on preowned games. You want to ignore that each and every time a used copy of a game is sold it gives publishers the ability to up sell a new customer on high margin DLC. You have to take a pretty narrow point of view to equate piracy and used game sales.

Now you shall face my army of strawmen... Muwhahahaahah

Jerykk has made his position clear that he sees no difference between buying a used game or pirating a game because during the actual transaction (buying a used game or downloading a pirated game) no compensation is provided to the publisher and or developer. This position ignores any and all other factors that make buying a used game dramatically different than simply downloading a pirated copy. I pointed out a few of the differences to illustrate my point, which is hardly straw-man argument.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 23, 2012, 12:30:You're still arguing legality and not practical results. Once again, nobody is disputing that people are allowed to buy and sell used games. However, when used games are bought and sold, neither the developer or publisher sees compensation. Whether or not they deserve to see compensation is another matter entirely, but the fact remains that they don't see any. Same thing applies to piracy.

I see the problem here. You want to argue the single used game transaction and ignore the larger picture. You want to ignore that the original "new" buyer almost certainly factored in their ability to resell the game at a later time before making their purchase. You want to pretend that the money received by selling their game will not recirculate into the game industry and will only be used on preowned games. You want to ignore that each and every time a used copy of a game is sold it gives publishers the ability to up sell a new customer on high margin DLC. You have to take a pretty narrow point of view to equate piracy and used game sales.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 23, 2012, 12:30:You're still arguing legality and not practical results. Once again, nobody is disputing that people are allowed to buy and sell used games. However, when used games are bought and sold, neither the developer or publisher sees compensation. Whether or not they deserve to see compensation is another matter entirely, but the fact remains that they don't see any. Same thing applies to piracy.

I see the problem here. You want to argue the single used game transaction and ignore the larger picture. You want to ignore that the original "new" buyer almost certainly factored in their ability to resell the game at a later time before making their purchase. You want to pretend that the money received by selling their game will not recirculate into the game industry and will only be used on preowned games. You want to ignore that each and every time a used copy of a game is sold it gives publishers the ability to up sell a new customer on high margin DLC. You have to take a pretty narrow point of view to equate piracy and used game sales.

It's not semantics, you just are being willfully ignorant. If I pay $60 for a game, and then sell it to someone else for $40, the developers got paid for the game - they got their share of the original $60. Me later selling it to someone else doesn't change that. But they also have no right to the $40 that I sold it for, because I'm simply giving away my license to the game. To say that the developer "wasn't compensated" is obviously wrong - the developer made their cut of the game. They also aren't entitled to any compensation if I loan it to a friend, throw it in the garbage, or leave it sitting in the street.

You're still arguing legality and not practical results. Once again, nobody is disputing that people are allowed to buy and sell used games. However, when used games are bought and sold, neither the developer or publisher sees compensation. Whether or not they deserve to see compensation is another matter entirely, but the fact remains that they don't see any. Same thing applies to piracy.

For you as consumers, which is making games more annoying, stupid DRM or day-one DLC and on-disc DLC?

I don't think any of those things actually apply to piracy. Pirates don't have to deal with DRM and they get all DLC for free. No, all of those things are designed to promote new sales. That's one of the biggest reasons why digital distribution is growing popular among publishers and developers. No used sales, so they see profit from every transaction that will ever be made.

I agree with Jerykk, the argument has devolved into semantics. No one is arguing the legality, or first sale doctrine, just the practical results.

The used game market is different, not in principle, but in implementation, from most any other used goods market. There are good reasons that the games industry is raising a stink about used game sales when so many other industries don't even care.

The first problem is that used and new share point-of-sale in such a direct manner. When I go to Sears they don't try and sell used merchandise to me. In fact, I can't think of anywhere people actively try and push used goods on me except GameStop.

In just about every other market, they have every incentive to sell new. The margins are higher, and in many cases stocking used goods would be impractical or impossible. But games are somewhat unique in that selling used is the most profitable, and is logistically much easier than in other markets.

GameStop has taken a right we enjoyed, selling our games when we are done, and abused it so badly that we have to deal with the consequences.

Except now you're arguing semantics. Yes, used sales are legal and piracy is not. Nobody ever disputed that. However, if you look at the actual results of used sales, you see that they are pretty much the same as the results of piracy. You get to play the game without compensating the publisher or developer.

It's not semantics, you just are being willfully ignorant. If I pay $60 for a game, and then sell it to someone else for $40, the developers got paid for the game - they got their share of the original $60. Me later selling it to someone else doesn't change that. But they also have no right to the $40 that I sold it for, because I'm simply giving away my license to the game. To say that the developer "wasn't compensated" is obviously wrong - the developer made their cut of the game. They also aren't entitled to any compensation if I loan it to a friend, throw it in the garbage, or leave it sitting in the street.

Now, if you want to argue over whether people should have the ability to sell their license, by all means, argue it, but that's a separate argument.

That's three transactions for the same game, only one of which compensated the publisher and developer.

Again, not the case. As soon as the developer was compensated for the original sale, that's the end of their participation in things. Any and all future transactions only take place because they were compensated. And that's all the get. Once the sale takes place, people are free to do what they want with the product, which includes transfering the license. That right is part of the price that's being paid.

If developers want to strip that right from people, fine, then start charging less for their games to make up for it.